Sdny judges

Sdny judges DEFAULT

SDNY courthouses adopt vaccine requirement for employees, judges

(Reuters) - Judges, employees and contractors working in the federal courthouses in the Southern District of New York will be required to get vaccinated against COVID-19 under a new policy court officials rolled out on Monday.

The new policy makes the court one of the biggest in the federal judiciary to adopt a vaccine mandate. Employees, judges and contractors must receive their first dose of a vaccine by Oct. 18 and be fully vaccinated by Nov. 15.

"We work with our experts to weigh what's best for the courthouse, for the health and safety of the employees and the public in the courthouse," Edward Friedland, the district court executive, said in an interview.

The policy will apply to roughly 800 people in the district's courthouses in Manhattan and White Plains, which often are the venue for some of the biggest white collar cases nationally.

The mandate came after President Joe Biden on Sept. 9 announced policies requiring most federal employees in the executive branch to get COVID-19 vaccinations amid a surge in hospitalizations and deaths fueled by the Delta variant of the coronavirus.

The policy did not apply to the judiciary. A handful of federal court districts have adopted vaccine requirements, including in New Jersey, Maryland, the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of Texas.

The federal bankruptcy courts in the Southern District of New York will follow the same policy, Friedland said. Medical and religious exemption requests will be considered.

Employees, judges and contractors in SDNY must also continue to follow its current COVID-19 safety policies in the interim, including twice-weekly testing and submission of proof of testing and results for employees who are not yet fully vaccinated.

The court already was requiring anyone, including visitors, who went to the district's courthouses to have their temperature taken and answer questions related to whether they had symptoms or been near anyone with COVID-19.

Those who were vaccinated could bring in proof of their status and certify that they would not come in if they were sick or tested positive, rather than answer the questionnaire every day, Friedland said.

Related stories:

Attacking anti-vaccine movement, Biden mandates widespread COVID shots, tests

Nate Raymond

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at [email protected]

Sours: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/sdny-courthouses-adopt-vaccine-requirement-employees-judges-2021-09-20/

28 U.S. Code § 134 - Tenure and residence of district judges

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 1 and section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Territories and Insular Possessions (Apr. 12, 1900, ch. 191, § 34, 31 Stat. 84; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 1, 36 Stat. 1087; Jan. 7, 1913; ch. 6, 37 Stat. 648; July 30, 1914, ch. 216, 38 Stat. 580; Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, § 41, 39 Stat. 965; Mar. 4, 1921, ch. 161, § 1, 41 Stat. 1412; Sept. 14, 1922, ch. 306, § 1, 42 Stat. 837; Mar. 26, 1938, ch. 51, § 2, 52 Stat. 118).

Section consolidates the last paragraph of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with portions of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with changes in phraseology necessary to effect consolidation.

Provisions of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the number of judges in the various districts are incorporated in section 133 of this title.

A portion of section 863 of title 48, U.S.C., 1940 ed., is retained in said title 48. For remainder of section 863, see Distribution Table.

The exception in subsection (b) “except in the District of Columbia” conforms with the recent decision in U.S. ex. rel. Laughlin v. Eicher, 1944, 56 F.Supp. 972, holding that residence requirement of section 1 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., did not apply to district judges in the District of Columbia. (See reviser’s note under section 44 of this title.)

The clause in said last paragraph of section 1 of title 28 providing that any district judge, who violates the residence requirement, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, was omitted. This penalty provision was attached to the residence requirement at the time of compilation of the Revised Statutes of 1878, although it is apparent that Congress only intended that the penalty should be invoked upon the unauthorized practice of law. See U.S. ex. rel. Laughlin v. Eicher, supra, in which an outline of the history of said section 1 of title 28 is given.

Editorial Notes

Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–317 inserted “the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of New York,” after “the District of Columbia,” and inserted “Each district judge of the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York may reside within 20 miles of the district to which he or she is appointed.” at end.

1971—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 92–208 struck out provision requiring that one of the district judges for the Eastern District of Louisiana reside in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

1966—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–571 struck out provisions which excepted district judges in Puerto Rico from tenure during good behavior and which instead set eight-year terms for them to be served until their successors were appointed and qualified.

1961—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 87–36 required the residence of one of the district judges for the Eastern District of Louisiana to be in East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

1959—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 86–3 struck out provisions which limited district judges in Hawaii to a term of six years.

1954—Subsecs. (a) and (b) reenacted without change by act Feb. 10, 1954.

Subsec. (c). Act Feb. 10, 1954, substituted entirely new provisions giving the judicial council of the circuit the authority to determine residence of district judges when it is in the public interest and the nature of the business of the district court necessitates the presence of a judge at or near a particular place for holding court in the district or within a particular part of the district, for former provisions relating to residence of one of the district judges for the District of Kansas.

Subsecs. (d), (e). Act Feb. 10, 1954, struck out subsecs. (d) and (e) which related to residence of one of the district judges for the Southern District of California and one of the district judges for the Southern District of Texas.

1949—Subsecs. (c) to (e). Act Aug. 3, 1949, added subsecs. (c) to (e).

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1959 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 86–3 effective on admission of Hawaii into the Union, see Effective Date of 1959 Amendment note set out under section 133 of this title. Admission of Hawaii into the Union was accomplished Aug. 21, 1959, upon issuance of Proc. No. 3309, Aug. 21, 1959, 25 F.R. 6868, 73 Stat. c74, as required by sections 1 and 7(c) of Pub. L. 86–3, Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 4, set out as notes preceding section 491 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Tenure and Salary Rights of Judges in Puerto Rico in Office on September 12, 1966

Pub. L. 89–571, § 4, Sept. 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, provided that:

“The amendments made by this section to sections 134 and 373 of title 28, United States Code, shall not affect the tenure of office or right to continue to receive salary after resignation, retirement, or failure of reappointment of any district judge for the district of Puerto Rico who is in office on the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 12, 1966].”

Applicability of Orders Under 1954 Amendment

Act Feb. 10, 1954, ch. 6, § 2(b)(13)(b), 68 Stat. 12, provided:

“Orders made by the judicial councils of the circuits under the second sentence of subsection (c) of section 134 of Title 28, as amended by this section, determining that a specified district judge shall maintain his abode at or near a place or within an area which the council has theretofore designated for the abode of a district judge under the first sentence of such subsection, shall be applicable only to district judges appointed after the enactment of this act [Feb. 10, 1954].”

Sours: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/134
  1. Pink kitchen hand towels
  2. 2 inch exhaust connector
  3. New video card
  4. Floral laser cut pattern


The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia is one of 94 United States district courts. The district operates out of courthouses in Augusta, Brunswick, Dublin, Savannah, Waycross, and Statesboro. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit based in downtown Atlanta at the Elbert P. Tuttle Federal Courthouse.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are no current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, out of the court's three judicial positions.

Pending nominations

There are no pending nominees for this court.

Active judges

Article III judges

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Lisa Wood

George W. Bush (R)

February 8, 2007

University of Georgia, 1985

University of Georgia School of Law, 1990

James Hall

George W. Bush (R)

April 29, 2008

Augusta College, 1979

University of Georgia School of Law, 1982

Stan Baker

Donald Trump (R)

August 30, 2018

Davidson College, 2001

University of Georgia, 2004

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

  • Democrat appointed: 0
  • Republican appointed: 3

Senior judges

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

  • Democrat appointed: 2
  • Republican appointed: 0

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.[1]

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Brian K. Epps

June 6, 2013

University of Georgia, 1995

University of Georgia School of Law, 1998

Benjamin Cheesbro

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

September 5, 2018

University of Georgia School of Law, 2010

Christopher Ray

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

February 15, 2019

Princeton University, 1991

Fordham University School of Law, 1994

Former chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in one of the federal courts, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy in the office of chief judge is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges.

The chief judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. A statutory change in the 1950s created the seven-year term. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position.

Unlike the chief justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of his or her term and does not create a vacancy on the bench by the fact of his or her promotion.[2]

Former judges

For more information about the judges of the Southern District of Georgia, see former federal judges of the Southern District of Georgia.

Jurisdiction

Southern District of Georgia counties (click for larger map)

The Southern District of Georgia has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

There are six court divisions, each covering the following counties:

The Augusta Division, covering Burke, Glascock, Lincoln, Richmond, Warren, Columbia, Jefferson, McDuffie, Taliaferro, and Wilkes counties

The Brunswick Division, covering Appling, Glynn, Long, Wayne, Camden, Jeff Davis, and McIntosh counties

The Dublin Division, covering Dodge, Laurens, Telfair, Wheeler, Johnson, Montgomery, and Treutlen counties

The Savannah Division, covering Bryan, Chatham, Effingham, and Liberty counties

The Statesboro Division, covering Bulloch, Emanuel, Screven, Evans, Candler, Jenkins, Tattnall, and Toombs counties

The Waycross Division, covering Atkinson, Brantley, Coffee, Ware, Bacon, Charlton, and Pierce counties

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in April 2021. Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term Explanation
Cases filed and terminatedThe number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case loadThe number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filedThe number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminatedThe total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining casesThe number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil casesThe number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant postsThe number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/PostThe number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.

Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia caseload stats, 2010-2019
YearCases FiledCases TerminatedCases PendingNumber of JudgeshipsVacant Judgeship MonthsAverage Total Filings per JudgeshipTrials Completed per JudgeshipMedian time from filing to disposition, criminalMedian time from filing to disposition, civilThree-year civil cases (#)Three-year civil cases (%)
20101,6481,6081,288305492399122
20111,4801,5091,069304942097203
20121,6931,6531,200305643398243
20131,5871,5311,267305294999273
20141,7001,7191,2533056740810293
20151,5731,4811,338305243789354
20161,6091,6451,3053053636811465
20171,5821,5411,3563105272589638
20181,6331,4661,5193125441688687
20191,7631,6091,674305882589858
Average1,6271,5761,327325423089415

History

The District of Georgia was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and established the entire state as one district with one post. On August 11, 1848, Congress reorganized the District of Georgia into the Northern District of Georgia and the Southern District of Georgia with one post split between the two districts. On April 25, 1882, Congress assigned a new post to the Northern District of Georgia and permanently assigned the previous post to the Southern District of Georgia. Since then, two additional posts were added to the court for a total of three posts.[3]

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Southern District of Georgia:[3]

Federal courthouse

Six federal courthouses serve the Southern District of Georgia located in Augusta, Brunswick, Dublin, Savannah, Waycross, and Statesboro.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are currently 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.[4][5]

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.[6]

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through October 1 of the first year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Reagan made the most district court appointments with 11. President Biden made nine, the second most for the presidents under study for this period. President Trump had made two.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.[5]

Step ApprovedA Candidacy Proceeds DefeatedA Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation Candidate becomes federal judge Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.[7]

External links

See also

  1. U.S. District Court - NH, "Magistrate Judges," archived April 14, 2014
  2. United States Courts, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed April 23, 2021
  3. 3.03.1Federal Judicial Center, "The U.S. District Courts and the Federal Judiciary," accessed April 26, 2021
  4. US Courts, "Federal Judgeships," accessed May 10, 2021 (archived)
  5. 5.05.1U.S. Courts, "United States District Court Federal Judiciary Frequently Asked Questions," accessed May 10, 2021 (archived)
  6. United States District Courts, "District Courts," accessed May 10, 2021
  7. The 'Lectric Law Library, "Understanding the U.S. federal courts"
Sours: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Georgia

Hon. Ronnie Abrams

Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Hon. Vincent L. Briccetti

The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas St.
White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Hon. Denise L. Cote

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. John P. Cronan

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Paul A. Crotty

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Charles S. Haight

Chambers of U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight
U.S. District Court
141 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510

Hon. Philip M. Halpern

The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas St.
White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Hon. Kenneth M. Karas

The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas St.
White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Hon. John F. Keenan

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. John G. Koeltl

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Lewis J. Liman

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Victor Marrero

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Colleen McMahon

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Jed S. Rakoff

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Edgardo Ramos

Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007

Hon. Nelson S. Roman

The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas St.
White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Hon. Cathy Seibel

The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse
300 Quarropas St.
White Plains, NY 10601-4150

Hon. Louis L. Stanton

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Sidney H. Stein

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Analisa Torres

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Kimba M. Wood

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Hon. Gregory H. Woods

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Sours: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges

Judges sdny

Barbara S. Jones, former judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, focuses her practice on corporate monitorships, compliance issues, internal investigations and arbitrations and mediations.

During her 16-year term in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Jones presided over a diverse range of cases, including accounting and securities fraud, antitrust, fraud and corruption involving city contracts and federal loan programs, labor racketeering and terrorism. In May 2010, Judge Jones was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to serve on the seven-member Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation; she served on the panel until October 2012.

Prior to her U.S. District Judge nomination in 1995 by President Bill Clinton, she served as Chief Assistant to Robert M. Morgenthau, then-District Attorney of New York County. Previously, she was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where she served as the chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force Unit. Judge Jones has served as an adjunct assistant professor at Fordham Law School and New York University School of Law. Judge Jones also chaired the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, created by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, aimed at assessing the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assaults in the military. The panel issued a report to Congress in June 2014 with 132 recommendations to the Department of Defense. 

Sours: https://bracewell.com/people/barbara-s-jones
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois - Congressional Swearing-In Ceremony
Southern District of New York
Second Circuit
SDNY.gif
Judgeships
Posts: 28
Judges: 25
Vacancies: 4
Judges
Chief:Colleen McMahon
Active judges:Ronnie Abrams, Vincent L. Briccetti, Vernon Broderick, Valerie Caproni, Andrew L. Carter Jr., John Peter Cronan, Paul A. Engelmayer, Katherine Failla, Jesse Furman, Paul Gardephe, Philip M. Halpern, Kenneth Karas, John Koeltl, Lewis Liman, Alison J. Nathan, James Paul Oetken, Edgardo Ramos, Nelson S. Roman, Lorna Schofield, Cathy Seibel, Laura Swain, Analisa Torres, Mary Kay Vyskocil, Gregory Howard Woods

Senior judges:
Richard Berman, Naomi Buchwald, Kevin Castel, Denise Cote, Paul Crotty, George Daniels, Charles Haight, Alvin Hellerstein, Lewis Kaplan, John Keenan, Victor Marrero, Lawrence McKenna, Colleen McMahon, Loretta Preska, Jed Rakoff, Louis Stanton, Sidney Stein, Kimba Wood

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is one of 94 United States district courts. The Southern District is one of the most influential and active federal district courts in the United States, largely because of its jurisdiction over New York's major financial centers. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in Lower Manhattan at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Federal Courthouse.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are four current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, out of the court's 28 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Dale Ho

Joe Biden (D)

Princeton University, 1999

Yale Law School, 2005

Active judges

Article III judges

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

John Koeltl

Bill Clinton (D)

August 10, 1994

Georgetown University, 1967

Harvard Law, 1971

Laura Swain

Bill Clinton (D)

July 11, 2000

Harvard-Radcliffe College, 1979

Harvard Law, 1982

Kenneth Karas

George W. Bush (R)

June 13, 2004

Georgetown University, 1986

Columbia University Law, 1991

Cathy Seibel

George W. Bush (R)

July 30, 2008

Princeton University, 1982

Fordham University Law, 1985

Paul Gardephe

George W. Bush (R)

August 8, 2008

University of Pennsylvania, 1979

Columbia Law, 1982

Vincent L. Briccetti

Barack Obama (D)

April 14, 2011

Columbia University, 1976

Fordham University Law, 1980

James Paul Oetken

Barack Obama (D)

July 20, 2011

University of Iowa, 1988

Yale Law, 1991

Paul A. Engelmayer

Barack Obama (D)

July 27, 2011

Harvard, 1983

Harvard Law, 1987

Alison J. Nathan

Barack Obama (D)

October 17, 2011

Cornell, 1994

Cornell Law, 2000

Edgardo Ramos

Barack Obama (D)

December 6, 2011

Yale, 1982

Harvard Law, 1987

Andrew L. Carter Jr.

Barack Obama (D)

December 8, 2011

University of Texas, 1991

Harvard Law, 1994

Jesse Furman

Barack Obama (D)

February 17, 2012

Harvard, 1994

Yale Law, 1998

Ronnie Abrams

Barack Obama (D)

March 23, 2012

Cornell University, 1990

Yale Law School, 1993

Lorna Schofield

Barack Obama (D)

December 13, 2012

Indiana University, 1977

New York University Law, 1981

Katherine Failla

Barack Obama (D)

March 5, 2013

College of William & Mary, 1990

Harvard Law, 1993

Analisa Torres

Barack Obama (D)

April 23, 2013

Harvard, 1981

Columbia Law, 1984

Nelson S. Roman

Barack Obama (D)

May 13, 2013

Fordham University, 1984

Brooklyn Law, 1989

Vernon Broderick

Barack Obama (D)

September 10, 2013

Yale, 1985

Harvard Law, 1988

Gregory Howard Woods

Barack Obama (D)

November 18, 2013

Williams College, 1991

Yale Law, 1995

Valerie Caproni

Barack Obama (D)

December 2, 2013

Tulane University, 1976

University of Georgia Law, 1979

Mary Kay Vyskocil

Donald Trump (R)

December 20, 2019

Dominican College of Blauvelt, 1979

St. John's University School of Law, 1983

Lewis Liman

Donald Trump (R)

December 31, 2019

Harvard College, 1983

Yale University Law School, 1987

Philip M. Halpern

Donald Trump (R)

February 21, 2020

Fordham University, 1977

Elizabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, 1980

John Peter Cronan

Donald Trump (R)

August 10, 2020

Georgetown University, 1998

Yale Law School, 2001

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

  • Democrat appointed: 18
  • Republican appointed: 7

Senior judges

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Charles Haight

Gerald Ford (R)

September 23, 1995

Yale University, 1952

Yale Law School, 1955

Louis Stanton

Ronald Reagan (R)

October 1, 1996

Yale University, 1950

University of Virginia School of Law, 1955

John Keenan

Ronald Reagan (R)

December 31, 1996

Manhattan College, 1951

Fordham University Law, 1954

Lawrence McKenna

George H.W. Bush (R)

May 24, 2002

Fordham College, 1956

Columbia Law, 1959

Kimba Wood

Ronald Reagan (R)

June 1, 2009

Connecticut College, 1965

Harvard Law School, 1969

Sidney Stein

Bill Clinton (D)

September 1, 2010

Princeton University, 1967

Yale Law, 1972

Jed Rakoff

Bill Clinton (D)

December 31, 2010

Swarthmore College, 1964

Harvard Law, 1969

Victor Marrero

Bill Clinton (D)

December 31, 2010

New York University, 1964

Yale Law School, 1968

Alvin Hellerstein

Bill Clinton (D)

January 30, 2011

Columbia, 1954

Columbia Law, 1956

Lewis Kaplan

Bill Clinton (D)

February 1, 2011

University of Rochester, 1966

Harvard Law, 1969

Richard Berman

Bill Clinton (D)

September 11, 2011

Cornell University, 1964

New York University School of Law, 1967

Denise Cote

Bill Clinton (D)

December 15, 2011

St. Mary's College, 1968

Columbia Law School, 1975

Naomi Buchwald

Bill Clinton (D)

March 21, 2012

Brandeis University, 1965

Columbia Law School, 1968

Paul Crotty

George W. Bush (R)

August 1, 2015

University of Notre Dame, 1962

Cornell Law School, 1967

Loretta Preska

George H.W. Bush (R)

March 1, 2017

College of St. Rose, 1970

Fordham University School of Law, 1973

Kevin Castel

George W. Bush (R)

August 5, 2017

St. John's University, 1972

St. John's University School of Law, 1975

Colleen McMahon

Bill Clinton (D)

April 10, 2021

The Ohio State University, 1973

Harvard Law, 1976

George Daniels

Bill Clinton (D)

May 1, 2021

Yale, 1975

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1978

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

  • Democrat appointed: 9
  • Republican appointed: 8

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.[1]

JudgeAppointed ByAssumed OfficeBachelorsLaw

Barbara Moses

Dartmouth University

Harvard Law School

Debra Freeman

Yale University

New York University

James L. Cott

Harvard College, 1981

Northeastern School of Law, 1985

Martin Goldberg

March 13, 1992

Fairleigh Dickinson University

New York University Law

Lisa Smith

March 20, 1995

Earlham College, 1977

Duke University Law, 1980

Kevin Fox

October 2, 1997

Columbia University

Brooklyn Law School

Gabriel Gorenstein

March 2, 2001

Yale University, 1979

Columbia Law, 1984

Paul Davison

January 5, 2009

Harvard College, 1980

New York University Law, 1985

Sarah Netburn

August 16, 2012

Brown University

University of California

Judith C. McCarthy

April 14, 2014

Barnard College

City University of New York Law School

Katharine Parker

November 4, 2016

Robert Lehrburger

October 30, 2017

Stewart Aaron

December 1, 2017

Ona Wang

March 5, 2018

Sarah Cave

October 1, 2019

Former Chief judges

In order to qualify for the office of chief judge in one of the federal courts, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65 and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy in the office of chief judge is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position. Unlike the Chief Justice of the United States, a chief judge returns to active service after the expiration of his or her term and does not create a vacancy on the bench by the fact of his or her promotion.[2][3]

Former judges

For more information about the judges of the Southern District of New York, see former federal judges of the Southern District of New York.

Jurisdiction

The Counties of the Southern District of New York (click for larger map)

The Southern District of New York has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

The court shares geographic jurisdiction over New York City with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which manages Brooklyn, Queens, and Richmond (Staten Island) counties, along with Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island.

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in May 2021. Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term Explanation
Cases filed and terminatedThe number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case loadThe number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filedThe number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminatedThe total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining casesThe number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil casesThe number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant postsThe number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/PostThe number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.

Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York caseload stats, 2010-2019
YearCases FiledCases TerminatedCases PendingNumber of JudgeshipsVacant Judgeship MonthsAverage Total Filings per JudgeshipTrials Completed per JudgeshipMedian time from filing to disposition, criminalMedian time from filing to disposition, civilThree-year civil cases (#)Three-year civil cases (%)
201012,75711,96628,83128414561014811,33748
201111,70121,17117,62028874171115374,01028
201212,11011,96719,1802868433151583,63026
201312,09312,11818,8442844432151683,46626
201413,35913,37518,706280477141593,20223
201512,49013,19617,972285446141682,45218
201612,98313,77217,1912812464151392,24418
201712,72112,17917,2552827454151472,37919
201815,10413,09419,2392852539151462,66419
201914,49014,97118,6852872518141572,92721
Average12,98113,78119,35228414641415113,83125

History

The Southern District is a successor to the original District of New York, which was split into Northern and Southern Districts on April 9, 1814. The United States District Court for the District of New York was the first District Court ever convened under the sovereignty of the United States, with Judge James Duane presiding on November 3, 1789. Over its history, the court grew to twenty-eight permanent judicial posts and one temporary post that remains so.[4]

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Southern District of New York:[4]

Year Statute Total Seats
September 17891 Stat. 73 1 (District of New York)
April 9, 18143 Stat. 120 1 (Creation of court)
February 9, 190332 Stat. 805 2
May 26, 190634 Stat. 202 3
March 2, 190935 Stat. 685 4
September 14, 192242 Stat. 837 4 (2 temporary)
February 26, 192945 Stat. 1317 7 (2 temporary)
August 19, 193549 Stat. 659 9
June 15, 193649 Stat. 1491 11
May 31, 193852 Stat. 585 11 (1 temporary)
March 24, 194054 Stat. 219 11 (2 temporary)
June 8, 194054 Stat. 253 12 (1 temporary)
August 3, 194963 Stat. 493 16 (1 temporary)
February 10, 195468 Stat. 8 18 (1 temporary)
May 19, 196175 Stat. 80 24 (1 temporary)
June 2, 197084 Stat. 294 27 (1 temporary)
December 1, 1990104 Stat. 5089 28 (1 temporary)

Noteworthy cases

For a list of notable decisions, please see Opinions for the Southern District of New York.

  • NYC settles with five men wrongfully convicted (2014)Click for summary→
In April 1989, Trisha Melli was jogging through Central Park in New York City when she was attacked. She was raped and beaten. The police arrested a group of teenage boys, ages 14 to 16, all black or Latino. In 2002, an inmate unconnected with the five men confessed to the attack, and his DNA matched that found at the crime scene. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office asked for the convictions to be vacated. New York City did not admit any wrongdoing on its part and refused to make a monetary settlement until 2014. Four of the men were set to receive $7.125 million and one man, who spent nearly 13 years in prison, to receive $12.25 million. The settlement, which took years to work out, had to be approved by Judge Ronald Ellis.

Articles:

  • Second Circuit overturns judge's ruling in Citigroup case (2014)Click for summary→
When Judge Jed Rakoff refused to accept the settlement reached between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup in 2011, he abused his discretion by applying the wrong legal standard, according to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judge Rakoff refused the settlement because the SEC failed to prove the truth of the allegations involved, which the Second Circuit said is not a requirement for acceptance of a settlement agreement. Instead, a judge must look at the potential settlement for fairness, reasonableness and whether the public interest would be served by the settlement. The Second Circuit remanded the case back to Judge Rakoff to review the settlement again.

Articles:

  • Judge upholds ban on tobacco discounting in NYC (2014)Click for summary→
Judge Thomas Griesa upheld the New York City ban on coupons and other discounts for tobacco products. The ban is an effort by the city to keep the prices of tobacco products high, for adults and kids, so that they are less appealing or affordable. Lawyers for the tobacco companies claimed that the ban infringed on their clients' First Amendment right to free speech (along with other federal law claims). Judge Griesa, however, stated that the ban is only meant to regulate an economic transaction by keeping the prices of the products in question at retail price, not regulate manufacturer speech.

Articles:

  • Courthouse News, "Court Upholds Tobacco Discount Ban in NYC," June 20, 2014
  • PR Newswire, "Federal Court Upholds New York City's Law to Prohibit Tobacco Discounts and Further Reduce Youth Smoking," June 18, 2014
  • Law360, "NY Judge Won't Block NYC Tobacco Coupon Ban," June 18, 2014
  • Judge allows case against NYPD in fatal shooting of unarmed man to continue (2014)
     Judge(s):Kevin Castel (Bah v. City of New York, 13-cv-6690)
Click for summary→

On May 1, 2014, Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that a negligence lawsuit filed by the family of a mentally-ill man shot and killed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) may move forward in court.[5]


In the underlying case, in 2012, NYPD officers entered the apartment of Mohamed Bah, an emotionally unstable man, after his mother called 911 to get him medical attention. The police claimed that upon their arrival, Bah allegedly started to swing a knife at them. Once inside, officers attempted to subdue Bah with Tasers. One officer accidentally struck another officer with his Taser, prompting the second officer to believe he'd been stabbed by Bah.[5] Officers then fired ten shots at Bah, and hit him eight times, wounding him fatally. Bah's survivors filed a $70 million suit against the City and the NYPD, with claims that the officers were negligent and unlawfully entered Bah's apartment.[6]


In his ruling on the matter, Judge Castel dismissed the family's claims of negligence, but allowed allegations of unlawful entry and improper supervision to stand, noting, "Based on the facts alleged, it is plausible that immediate action was not necessary as the [Emergency Service Unit] officers, at minimum, may have been able to enlist Mrs. Bah’s help in speaking with Bah and did not have reason to believe that Bah posed a threat to anyone." A spokesperson for the New York City Law Department pledged that the City's attorneys would "vigorously defend this lawsuit.”[5][6]

  • Judge strikes down New York's campaign contribution limits as to individual groups (2014)
     Judge(s):Paul Crotty (New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh, et al, 1:13-cv-06769-PAC)
Click for summary→

On April 24, 2014, Judge Paul Crotty found that the State of New York's $150,000 yearly limit on campaign contributions to independent groups -- in particular, political groups known as super PACS -- was unconstitutional under the First Amendment in light of a Second Circuit ruling and the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.[7][8]


In the fall of 2013, the New York Progress and Protection PAC (NYPPP), a group that supported conservative candidate Joe Llota's failed bid for the New York City mayorship, filed suit seeking an injunction against the state's election laws, specifically requesting that the six-figure cap on campaign contributions be suspended.[7][8] NYPPP did not initially receive its injunction, but when the case was brought to the Second Circuit, the appeals court found that the law which limited financial contributions was likely unconstitutional, and in October 2013, lifted the cap for the duration of the New York City mayoral election.[9]


When the case returned to the federal district court, Judge Crotty bemoaned the Second Circuit and Supreme Court rulings, referring to the decisions as "misguided," but applicable nonetheless, noting, "Our Supreme Court has made clear that only certain contribution limits comport with the First Amendment." Following the "clear guidance" received from both courts above his own, Crotty granted a NYPPP motion for summary judgmentRefers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law., effectively striking down New York's campaign contribution limits as to individual groups.[7][8]


A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman expressed his "disappointment" with the decision.[7][8] Notably, Shaun McCutcheon, the plaintiff in the precedential Supreme Court case, pledged to contribute "at least $200,000" to NYPPP during Llota's unsuccessful bid for the New York City mayorship.[7][9]

  • Railroad retiree sentenced for collecting fraudulent disability payments (2014)
     Judge(s):Kimba Wood (U.S. v. Neville)
Click for summary→

On March 10, 2014, Judge Kimba Wood sentenced Kevin Neville, a former Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) dispatcher, to twenty-one months in prison for his rampant filing of fraudulent disability claims.[10]


Neville was part of a "massive, decadelong scheme" where former LIRR employees made fraudulent claims to the federal Railroad Retirement Board. Neville collected about $200,000 after claiming that he had very bad back pain. In the prosecution of the case against Neville, the government found that the man was an avid golfer and shoveled snow in the winter months, despite assertions that he couldn't "bend or stretch."[10]


Neville's lawyer asked that Judge Wood sentence his client to probation, but she declined to do so, citing Neville's "greed." Neville was sentenced to one year and nine months in jail in the hope of deterring future fraud.[10]

  • Chevron victory in Ecuadorian pollution case (2014)
     Judge(s):Lewis Kaplan (Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF)
Click for summary→

On March 4, 2014, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in favor of Chevron, an oil and natural gas company, in a case alleging that a multibillion dollar pollution judgment against it, issued by a foreign court, had been obtained through illegitimate means of fraud and corruption.[11]

In the underlying case, Judge Nicolas Zambrano of Ecuador found Chevron liable for polluting the Lago Agrio rainforest on February 14, 2011, assessing about $19 billion in damages and fines against the company. Chevron refused to pay the fines or accept responsibility for the pollution, and the company brought this case on U.S. soil, alleging that much of the evidence used to obtain judgment was fabricated by lead attorney Steven Donziger. Donziger denied the allegations, but the evidence against him detailing the fraud upon the court, up to and including bribing Judge Zambrano, was overwhelming. In an almost 500-page ruling, Judge Kaplan noted, "an innocent defendant is no more entitled to submit false evidence, to co-opt and pay off a court-appointed expert or to coerce or bribe a judge or jury than a guilty one."[11]

Judge Kaplan further noted that Donziger and his team subverted justice in their actions, writing:

Justice is not served by inflicting injustice. The ends do not justify the means. There is no “Robin Hood” defense to illegal and wrongful conduct. And the defendants’ “this-is-the-way-it-is-done-in-Ecuador” excuses – actually a remarkable insult to the people of Ecuador – do not help them. The wrongful actions of Donziger and his Ecuadorian legal team would be offensive to the laws of any nation that aspires to the rule of law, including Ecuador.[11][12]

Donziger pledged to appeal the ruling, calling it an "appalling decision from a deeply flawed proceeding."[11]

  • NSA's phone surveillance tactics are constitutional (2013)
     Judge(s):William Pauley (American Civil Liberties Union, et al v. Clapper, et al, 13-cv-3994 (WHP))
Click for summary→

On December 27, 2013, Judge William Pauley granted the government's motion to dismiss in this case, ruling that the National Security Agency's (NSA) collection of telephone data was constitutional, and creating a split of authority within the federal judiciary. In the underlying case, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the government in June 2013, alleging Fourth Amendment privacy violations and First Amendment free speech and association violations following the Guardian newspaper's revelation of the extent of the NSA's domestic spying protocols, specifically, the collection of "bulk telephony metadata" from all phone calls made in America. Pauley dismissed the ACLU's complaint, referring to the NSA's tactics as an anti-terrorism "counter-punch," and further noting that the agency's "blunt tool only works because it collects everything." One week prior to Pauley's ruling, Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the NSA's collection of telephone metadata en masse was unconstitutional, calling the program "almost Orwellian." On January 2, 2014, the ACLU appealed Pauley's ruling to the Second Circuit.[13][14][15][16][17]

  • Wrongfully imprisoned man freed after 18 years (2013)
     Judge(s):Charles Haight (Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction, 3:03-CV-196 (CSH))
Click for summary→

On December 16, 2013, Judge Charles Haight ordered that Scott Lewis, a Connecticut man imprisoned after a double homicide conviction in 1995, be freed within 60 days unless the state should decide to retry him. Lewis pressed his innocence from the time of his arrest and throughout nearly two decades spent in prison, working feverishly to win his freedom despite his 120-year sentence. He represented himself without an attorney for 14 years before Professor Brett Dignam of the Columbia Law School's Mass Incarceration Clinic stepped in to assist with his case. Based on information from prior court proceedings -- including two state court habeas petitions, FBI intervention and investigation, and a federal court habeas petition -- Judge Haight, in examining whether Lewis received a fair trial and without commenting on his innocence, determined that Lewis was "entitled to federal habeas relief because the state suppressed exculpatory and impeachment evidence" (i.e., the state withheld evidence that a key witness had been coached by police and that a police informant who died before trial notified authorities that another man committed the crime). A representative from the Connecticut state attorney's office noted that the case was under review following Judge Haight's ruling.[18][19][20]

  • Weird Al Yankovic royalties settlement (2013)
     Judge(s):Analisa Torres (Ear Booker Enterprises v. Sony Music Entertainment, 1:12-cv-02385-AT)
Click for summary→

In March 2012, Ear Booker Enterprises, a company owned by parodist Weird Al Yankovic, filed suit against Sony Music Entertainment alleging that the artist was owed approximately $5 million in unpaid music royalties. Specifically, Ear Booker alleged that the record label treated digital downloads as sales as opposed to licenses, resulting in income to the singer of 15 percent rather than 50 percent. In addition, Ear Booker requested payments from settlements reached by Sony with third party music programs such as Spotify, Vevo, Napster, Kazaa, and Grokster. On December 16, 2013, the parties settled the case and filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by Judge Analisa Torres. The details of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.[21][22][23]

  • Match.com class action suit over fraudulent dating profiles (2013)
     Judge(s):Jesse Furman (Avalos v. IAC/Interactive Corp., Match.com LLC, and People Media LLC, 1:13-cv-08351-JMF)
Click for summary→

On November 21, 2013, lead plaintiff Yuliana Avalos filed a class action lawsuit against IAC/InterActiveCorp and its subsidiaries Match.com and People Media alleging numerous causes of action, including trademark, copyright, fraud, negligence, and Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations. Avalos said that while she never had a profile on the dating site Match.com, or any of the other dating sites that were run by the company, the dating site knowingly and intentionally used her photographs in "hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent profiles," and "thousands if not millions of photographs of class members in fraudulent profiles." Avalos alleged that Match.com "conspired with criminals operating from locations including Internet cafes in Nigeria, Ghana and Russia" to create the fraudulent profiles. Avalos further claimed on behalf of the class that Match.com failed to police fraudulent profiles and refused to act on complaints received about them. Avalos requested $500 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Match.com released a statement and asserted that the suit was "filled with outlandish conspiracy theories," expressing surety that the Southern District of New York would "dismiss this case in short order." The case is before Judge Jesse Furman.[24][25]

  • AntiSec hacker sentenced after judge refuses to recuse (2013)
     Judge(s):Loretta Preska (U.S. v. Hammond)
Click for summary→

In March 2012, Jeremy Hammond was arrested and indicted for his involvement in the Stratfor email leak. Hammond was jailed for approximately eight months before Chief Judge Loretta Preska denied him bail at a pretrial hearing. At the same hearing, Judge Preska informed Hammond that he could be sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. Months later, in February 2013, Hammond's defense team filed a motion asking that Judge Preska recuse herself, raising the possibility that she could be biased due to her husband's connection to the case. Chief Judge Preska's husband, Thomas Kavaler, is a partner at the law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, and his emails were leaked in the Stratfor hack. Prior to joining the bench, Judge Preska was employed as a partner at the same firm. Moreover, several of the law firm's clients were victims of the hack. Chief Judge Preska denied the motion, ruling that these facts did not meet the legal standard used to question a judge's impartiality in a case. On May 28, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hammond pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in computer hacking. On November 15, 2013, Chief Judge Preska sentenced him the maximum of 10 years in prison.[26][27][28][29][30]

  • NYC violated law in emergency planning for persons with disabilities (2013)
     Judge(s):Jesse Furman (Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, et al v. Bloomberg, 1:11-cv-06690-JMF)
Click for summary→

On November 4, 2013, Judge Jesse Furman ruled that New York City's (NYC) inadequate accommodations for disabled residents during emergency situations violated federal law. In the underlying case, two nonprofit groups and two disabled individuals filed suit after Hurricane Irene in 2011, seeking class-action status on behalf of all disabled individuals in NYC. Plaintiffs alleged that NYC failed to do all of the following during emergencies and disasters: plan for evacuation, provide Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible shelter, attend to their needs during power outages, communicate during emergencies, and account for them in recovery operations. In November 2012, following Hurricane Sandy, Furman granted the plaintiffs' request. In a 119-page decision, one which acknowledged that NYC often performed an "outstanding job" with regard to its emergency preparedness planning, Furman wrote that while there was no indication of intentional discrimination on NYC's part, there appeared to be "benign neglect." Furman found that NYC's plans were "inadequate to ensure that people with disabilities [were] able to evacuate before or during an emergency; they fail[ed] to provide sufficiently accessible shelters; and they [did] not sufficiently inform people with disabilities of the availability and location of accessible emergency services." He did not go so far as to suggest possible remedies to these problems, noting that "complexity and potential expense involved." This is the first ruling following a trial where a federal judge has found that a city's emergency plans violated the ADA.[31][32]

  • Strippers entitled to minimum wage (2009-2013)
     Judge(s):Paul A. Engelmayer (Hart v. Rick's Cabaret International Inc. et al, 09 Civ. 3042 (PAE))
Click for summary→

U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer presided over a minimum-wage violation class action suit filed on behalf of nearly 2,000 current and former strippers employed at Rick's Cabaret, a Manhattan gentlemen's club. Like many strip clubs, Rick's classified its exotic dancers as independent contractors, without paying hourly wages; they earned income solely from customer tips. Because of the "tight control, indeed, control fairly described as micromanagement" Rick's enforced upon its dancers, often in the form of stringent guidelines and hefty fees and fines, Judge Engelmayer ruled that they ought to be classified as employees deserving of a minimum wage, rather than as independent contractors. Attorneys for the club have said that an appeal is a likely next step.[33][34][35]

  • Beastie Boys illegal sampling case (2013)
     Judge(s):Alison J. Nathan (TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond, et al, 1:12-cv-03529-AJN)
Click for summary→

U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan presided over a copyright infringement case filed against the Beastie Boys by record licensing entity TufAmerica. The company alleged that in the 1980s, the hip-hip group illegally sampled music from the band Trouble Funk, an R&B group whose licensing rights are owned by the company. TufAmerica claimed the Beastie Boys illegally used six samples of Trouble Funk’s music for a total of 20 seconds, thus infringing upon the R&B group’s rights. The Beastie Boys moved to dismiss the claims.

Judge Nathan was tasked with the duty of determining how the song samples ought to be compared. The Beastie Boys requested that the ordinary observer test be applied, while TufAmerica requested that the fragmented literal similarity test be applied. Judge Nathan agreed with TufAmerica, noting that "[t]he real question at this stage - more so than the question of how to label the relevant test - is whether (as to each sample) plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the sample is quantitatively and qualitatively important to the original work such that the fragmented similarity becomes sufficiently substantial for the use to become an infringement.”

Judge Nathan ruled that four of the six samples failed to rise to the level of infringement, but that the remaining two may pass the muster of the fragmented literal similarity test. In doing so, however, she limited TufAmerica’s claims to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the U.S. Copyright Act, declaring that the licensing entity could not seek monetary damages for any alleged instances of infringement that had occurred before May 12, 2009.[36][37][38][39][40]

  • $400M arbitration award upheld in oil suit (2013)
     Judge(s):Alvin Hellerstein (Corporacion Mexicana De Mantenimiento Intergral, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Pemex-Exploracion Y Produccion, 1:2010-cv-00206)
Click for summary→

On August 27, 2013, Judge Alvin Hellerstein upheld a nearly $400 million international arbitration award owed to Corporacion Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral (COMMISA), a Mexican subsidiary of KBR, by Pemex-Exploracion y Produccion (Pemex), a Mexican oil company. In the underlying case, COMMISA and Pemex contracted to build offshore natural gas platforms, and later, in 2004, accused each other of contractual breach. A lengthy legal battle ensued: Pemex proceeded to rescind its contracts with COMMISA, while COMMISA brought its claims to an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration panel. COMISSA was awarded $289 million in damages and $7.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses. In 2010, Judge Alvin Hellerstein confirmed enforcement of the award in the United States. At the same time, Pemex brought litigation in Mexico to invalidate the arbitration award, and in 2011, the company succeeded. The Eleventh Collegiate Court for the Federal District, a Mexican appeals court, found that based on legislation brought about after the litigation was initiated, Pemex's rescission was non-arbitrable, thus nullifying the award. Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit vacated and remanded Judge Hellerstein's enforcement action to his court. Judge Hellerstein, evaluating the case once more, reaffirmed COMMISA's arbitration award, noting that because the Eleventh Collegiate Court applied a law that did not exist at the time the parties contracted, and because the applicable statute of limitations had since expired, COMMISA would have been denied the opportunity to go to trial. In concluding his analysis of the case, Judge Hellerstein wrote that the Mexican "decision vacating the award violated basic notions of justice."[41]

  • Judge strikes down NYPD "stop-and-frisk" tactics (2013)
     Judge(s):Shira Scheindlin ([Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Floyd v. City of New York], 08 Civ. 1034)
Click for summary→

In August 2013, Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the New York Police Department's (NYPD) "stop-and-frisk" rule, which the NYPD credited with saving lives, disregarded the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Scheindlin also found that officers used racial profiling during the process, unfairly targeting minorities.[42]


The judge didn't rule out use of the program in the future, since the stop-and-frisk procedure was ruled constitutional in some circumstances previously by the Supreme Court of the United States (in Terry v. Ohio in 1968). However, Judge Scheindlin suggested steps to make the process more equitable, including a pilot project where police officers wear body cameras to record interactions and the solicitation of public feedback on the program.[43][44]


Update One

In October 2013, the Second Circuit removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from Floyd v. City of New York and put the remedies proposed by the judge on hold. The previous court order was stayed until an appeal was heard by the panel. [45]


Judge Scheindlin was removed from the case as a result of interviews with the media in May 2013 which made the court question her impartiality. In response to the accusation that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges, Scheindlin said:

The interviews . . . were conducted under the express condition that I would not comment on the Floyd case. I did not. Some of the reporters used quotes from written opinions in Floyd that gave the appearance that I had commented on the case. However, a careful reading of each interview will reveal that no such comments were made.[46][12]


Update Two

On November 22, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit, composed of Judge Jose Cabranes and Senior Judges John Walker and Barrington Parker, refused in a per curiam decision to vacate Judge Scheindlin's prior ruling which struck down the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. The judges denied motions filed by New York City to transfer the court's October 2013 stay of Scheindlin's ruling into its vacation, and further denied as moot motions filed by Scheindlin in opposition to the City's previously described motions. Judge Scheindlin's groundbreaking "stop-and-frisk" decision still stands.[47]

  • Banks artificially inflate tech bubble IPO (2009)
     Judge(s):Shira Scheindlin (In Re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS))
Click for summary→

Judge Scheindlin presided in a class-action lawsuit over 309 cases in which shareholders of tech stocks accused underwriters of artificially inflating the value of stock in technology companies that went public in the 1990s. The judge approved a settlement of $586 million. The defendants include, among others, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. The tech burst happened in 2000 after many technology-laden stocks crashed after evidence found that stock brokers issued false information that mislead investors.[48]

  • Google book scanning case (2009-2012)
     Judge(s):Denny Chin (The Authors Guild, et al. v. Google Inc, and American Society of Media Photographers, et al. v. Google Inc, 1:05-cv-08136-DC)
Click for summary→

Judge Chin presided in a copyright case involving Google after Google was taken to court by the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers over alleged copyright violations in the tech giant's attempt to digitize books.

On September 9, 2009, it was reported that Google would enter into a $125 million dollar settlement with the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers. However, there was widespread opposition to a possible settlement from not only the U.S. government, but also the governments of Germany and France along with Japanese authors, on the grounds of not letting authors have free choice over which parts of their works were published on the search engine.[49]

Judge Chin, on September 25, 2009, announced that he would delay a planned October 7, 2009, settlement hearing in the Google books case. Both sides asked for the delay over the possibility of the settlement being anti-competitive. However, both sides planned to meet on October 7, 2009, over case management plans to move the case to a final resolution.[50] During the hearing, Judge Chin set a deadline of November 9, 2009, in which Google must have a settlement plan ready for the judge to approve. The previous settlement proposal was thrown out.[51]

On November 19, 2009, Judge Chin gave preliminary approval of a settlement made between Google and book publishers. Google asked Judge Chin on February 11, 2010, to accept a $125 million dollar settlement in relation to the case. Attorneys for Google felt that if no settlement was reached, that it would set precedence for similar cases to backload court dockets resulting in litigation that could take years to rule on. The brief filed by Google was to convince the judge that the settlement would allow for more competition in the virtual book market amid Justice Department objections.[52][53]

Judge Chin on February 18, 2010, held a hearing on whether to accept the settlement by Google. Judge Chin had to delay the ruling because of so much information being presented that according to the judge it was "too much to digest."[54] However, on March 22, 2011, Judge Chin rejected the controversial settlement agreement "on copyright and antitrust grounds."[55]

The long-standing case was resolved, at least for publishers, on October 4, 2012, when the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and Google announced a settlement. The AAP, acting on behalf of five publishers named as plaintiffs in the suit, issued a statement stating "Google is said to 'acknowledge the rights and interests of copyright-holders,' and U.S. publishers can 'choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project.'"[56]

While Google and the AAP were able to resolve their suit, an additional aspect of the suit remained: "barring a settlement with the Authors Guild, the fair use questions at the heart of the Google program could still be adjudicated by Judge Chin.[57]

  • Scans of court documents involved in the case, as well as transcripts of some hearings, can be found here.
  • Harper's Bazaar wage suit (2012)
     Judge(s):Harold Baer (Wang v. Hearst Corporation, 1:2012cv00793)
Click for summary→

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer presided over a minimum-wage violation case against Hearst Corporation's Harper's Bazaar, a major fashion magazine. In July 2012, Judge Baer ruled that a federal lawsuit against the Hearst Corporation could go forward under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all unpaid interns who previously worked in the corporation’s magazines division. The suit was brought on behalf of Xuedan Wang, who was an unpaid intern at the magazine. Joined by almost 3,000 interns from other Hearst publications, the lawsuit was a class action suit.[58]

The claim is one of three claims brought by the same law firm, Outten & Golden, all revolving around minimum-wage violation claims by interns of major media organizations.[58]

  • NY City smoking deterrent posters (2012)
     Judge(s):Jed Rakoff (94th St. Grocery v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health, 11-91-cv)
Click for summary→

On July 10, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the decision of Judge Jed Rakoff, ruling that federal regulations preempted a city ordinance that required cigarette distributors to post gruesome photos of cigarette related illnesses at the point of sale. The court held that the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempted the local law, thus rendering the local ordinance unconstitutional. Philip Morris USA alongside twp other manufacturers, two major retailers, and two trade unions challenged this city law in federal court last year. Despite admitting the risks of smoking, Rakoff agreed with the cigarette producers, stating in his opinion, "Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law." The Second Circuit concurred, though they believed that the city could launch its own anti-smoking campaign using the images, but could not require retailers to do it. The case was heard by Judges Peter Hall, Gerard Lynch, and Denny Chin, with Chin writing the opinion of the court.[59][60]

  • Madoff trustees cases (2011)
     Judge(s):Jed Rakoff
Click for summary→

Judge Rakoff announced on October 14, 2011, that he would take over a lawsuit between Irving Picard, the liquidator of Bernard Madoff’s firm, and 32 trustees who withdrew money before the firm's 2008 bankruptcy. Judge Rakoff took the cases after being asked by investor Gerald Blumenthal, who was being sued by Picard, whether the Madoff estate owed him the money reflected on his Madoff brokerage statements. Blumenthal was then joined by 31 other investors facing similar lawsuits, which inspired Judge Rakoff to take all the cases because of their similarity to each other.[61]

  • AT&T age discrimination lawsuit (2011)
     Judge(s):J. Paul Oetken (EEOC v. AT&T Inc et al, No. 09-07323)
Click for summary→

In October 2011, Judge Oetken gave his approval of a settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and AT&T. The commission had originally filed suit against AT&T claiming that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 by refusing to rehire employees who had previously retired. Under the terms of the settlement, AT&T "will not maintain any policy prohibiting the rehiring of employees who left AT&T under the relevant retirement programs," and, furthermore, will not retaliate against anyone involved in the litigation.[62]

  • YES Network case (2010)
     Judge(s):Richard Sullivan (Robert M. Gutkowski v. George Steinbrenner III, 1:09-cv-07535-RJS)
Click for summary→

Judge Sullivan rejected a lawsuit by a former Madison Square Garden executive that claimed George Steinbrenner gave the idea for the YES Sports Network.

Bob Gutkowski, who used to run Madison Square Garden, said that he was promised compensation for helping start up the YES Network and was seeking $23 million dollars in lost compensation.

The case was thrown out after finding that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that Steinbrenner was liable.[63]

  • S&P/Moody's case (2010)
     Judge(s):Jed Rakoff
Click for summary→

Judge Rakoff ruled on June 1, 2010, that credit rating agencies like S & P and Moody's were not underwriters of securities. A group of plaintiffs sued the two credit rating agencies on claims that they used credit ratings to obtain $63 million dollars in mortgage-backed securities. The judge wrote in his ruling that the plaintiffs in the case had a very broad view of what an underwriter does and found no evidence that S & P and Moody's were involved in underwriting.[64]

  • Rajaratnam wiretaps (2010)
     Judge(s):Jed Rakoff
Click for summary→

Judge Rakoff ruled on February 10, 2010, that Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam and his associates turn over wiretaps that were used in the discovery of evidence for their criminal case to be used in a civil case. The Securities and Exchange Commission asked the court for Rajaratnam to turn over the wiretaps as they had filed a civil lawsuit over insider trading charges. Judge Rakoff said in his ruling that it would be unfair to have one side have important information such as wiretaps and felt it was important for Rajaratnam and his associates to turn over the wiretaps to the SEC.[65]

  • Arthur Nadel criminal case (2010)
     Judge(s):John Koeltl (U.S.A. v. Nadel, 09-mJ-00169)
Click for summary→

Judge Koeltl presided in the trial of hedge fund manager Arthur Nadel. Nadel was charged with securities fraud after bilking millions of dollars from investors and pleading guilty on February 24, 2010, to the charges.[66] Nadel was sentenced to 14 years in prison and died in April 2012 while serving his time.[67]

  • Hiram Monserrate case (2010)
     Judge(s):William Pauley (Monserrate v. NEW YORK STATE SENATE, 695 F. Supp. 2d 80)
Click for summary→

Judge Pauley denied a request by former New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate to stop a decision made by the New York Senate to expel him on February 9, 2010.[68]

Monserrate was expelled after being convicted of domestic violence towards his girlfriend which is considered a misdemeanor.[68]

The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but the appellate court ruled that the district court "did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Monserrate Appellants failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of any of the claims they press on appeal. We thus need not reach any of the other arguments advanced by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction."[69]

  • Dot-com collusion (2010)
     Judge(s):William Pauley
Click for summary→

On March 18, 2010, Judge Pauley ruled against striking down a regulation that prohibited collusion between investment bankers and analysts at Wall Street firms. The ruling came after the largest firms on Wall Street in 2009 wanted a 2003 rule that prohibited unsupervised contact between investment bankers and analysts overturned. The judge emphasized in his decision that there needed to be separation between independent analysts and bankers if confidence in the markets could be improved.[70]

  • Seinfeld cookbook copyright (2009-2010)
     Judge(s):Laura Swain (Lapine v. Seinfeld, No. 08 Civ. 128 (LTS)(RLE))
Click for summary→

Judge Swain tossed out a copyright infringement lawsuit against Jessica Seinfeld on September 10, 2009, after the judge found that a recipe in a cookbook did not infringe upon that of a competing author.[71]

Missy Chase Lapine sued the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld claiming a chicken breast recipe infringed on her similar recipe and competed unfairly. The judge found that because the styles of the books differed, there was no evidence that Seinfeld's wife committed plagiarism.[71]

The case was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Two appellate judges, Reena Raggi and Peter Hall, ruled against Missy Chase Lapine and affirmed the decision by Judge Swain. The judgment can be read here.[72]

In 2010, Missy Chase Lapine sued Jerry Seinfeld for slander as a result of an interview Mr. Seinfeld participated in on the David Letterman television show. The New York Supreme Court dismissed the claim as being without merit in 2011. The judgment can be read here.[73]

  • Bank of America-SEC Settlement (2009)
     Judge(s):Jed Rakoff
Click for summary→

Judge Rakoff presided over a lawsuit between the Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2009. The SEC alleged that Bank of America failed to disclose to investors an agreement to pay $5 billion in bonuses when it took over Merrill Lynch.[74][75]

On September 14, 2009, Judge Rakoff rejected the settlement deal between Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The veteran judge called the settlement deal worth $33 million "unreasonable and unfair" after the two sides first agreed to settle on charges Bank of America misled investors.[76]

The judge approved the settlement between Bank of America and the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2010. The two sides agreed to a settlement of $150 million. As part of the settlement, Bank of America also had to agree to oversight changes. Rakoff still had criticisms over the new settlement, calling the agreement "half-baked justice," but said that the $150 million settlement was "better than nothing".[77]

Click here for a copy of the settlement agreement.

  • Marc S. Dreier securities fraud case (2009)
     Judge(s):Jed Rakoff (SEC v. Marc S. Dreier, 08 Civ. 10617)
Click for summary→

Judge Rakoff was the presiding judge in the case of Marc S. Dreier, a former New York City attorney who pleaded guilty to committing a securities investment fraud scheme.

Dreier faced a possible prison sentence of up to 145 years. On July 13, 2009, Judge Rakoff sentenced Drier to 20 years in prison and criticized federal prosecutors that asked for a 145-year sentence. "Is the government serious about asking for 145 years? To me, for the government to ask for 145 years is to demean the sentence Judge Denny Chin imposed on Mr. Madoff," he said.[78]

  • Lil' Kim perjury trial (2009)
     Judge(s):Gerard Lynch
Click for summary→

Judge Lynch presided over the perjury trial of rap artist Lil' Kim in 2005. He sentenced her to a year and a day in jail.[79]

  • NYC bottled water deposit (2009)
     Judge(s):Deborah Batts
Click for summary→

On October 23, 2009, Judge Batts upheld the legality of a new state law in New York that required deposits for bottled water.

Judge Batts issued an order that on October 31, 2009, there must be a five cent recycling deposit added on to the normal selling price for bottled water.

Business groups in New York filed suit over the law claiming that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States.[80]

{{Notable case format|Level = Court|Title = USA v. John Gotti, Jr. (2009)|Case Link = https://casetext.com/case/us-v-gotti-20%7CCase name = USA v. John Gotti, Jr.|Case number = 8:08-cr 00312.T.23EAJ|Judge = Kevin Castel|Court=United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|Text = In 2009, Judge Castel presided in the Junior Gotti case on charges of conspiring and drug trafficking.[81] This was the fourth trial of Gotti; the three previous trials ended with hung juries.[82]

On July 8, 2009, Judge Castel denied requests to throw out a racketeering indictment and grant bond to Gotti while he was awaiting trial in September of 2009. The motion was made as Gotti had health problems, including kidney stones. Attorneys for Gotti made the request due to complaints of the lack of attention towards the issue at the correctional facility.[82]

On December 1, 2009, Judge Castel declared a mistrial in the case of John "Junior" Gotti. This happened after a jury was deadlocked for 11 days in trying to reach a verdict. It was reported that the jury could not find unanimous consent in reaching a verdict.[83]

Links for further reading

  • Bristol-Meyers Plavix case (2009)
     Judge(s):Paul Crotty (Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., No. 02 Civ. 2255 (SHS))
Click for summary→

Judge Crotty was the presiding judge in a case involving Bristol-Meyers Squibb in a patent dispute with Canadian drug maker Apotex over the blood thinner Plavix.[84]

On August 18, 2009, Judge Crotty approved a preliminary settlement that the drug maker and its former chief executive would pay $125 million in damages to settle litigation against Aptoex.[84]

The settlement came after a 2007 case in which Bristol-Meyers was fined $1 million by the Federal Trade Commission over making false statements in a failed settlement attempt with Aptoex.[84]

  • Fed Reserve disclosure (2009)
     Judge(s):Loretta Preska (Bloomberg v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, No. 08 Civ. 9595 (LAP))
Click for summary→

On August 24, 2009, Judge Preska ruled that the Federal Reserve must disclose the recipients of emergency loans and aid during the economic downturn.[85]

Bloomberg News took court action after the nation's central bank refused to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. According to the network, Bloomberg News hoped that if it made public the recipients of bailout money it would deter more bailout money from being handed out.[85]

As part of her order, Preska gave the Federal Reserve five days to hand over the documents. On August 28, 2009, Judge Preska delayed her order requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose bailout recipients. Preska also allowed the Fed to file an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.[86]

The case was subsequently argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on January 11, 2010, and decided on March 19, 2010. The appellate court judges, Dennis Jacobs, Pierre Leval, and Peter Hall, upheld the decision reached by Judge Preska.[87]

  • NYPD mass arrests (2009)
     Judge(s):Richard Sullivan (Michael Schiller v. The City of New York, et al., 1:04-cv-07922-RJS-JCF)
Click for summary→

Judge Sullivan ordered the New York Police Department to release arrest records of 1,800 protesters arrested and detained at the 2004 Republican National Convention. This came after the New York Civil Liberties Union demanded a review of the arrest records. This ruling served as another order from the judge to the New York Police to release the records.[88]

  • Madoff collusion case (2009)
     Judge(s):Richard Sullivan (USA v. Frank DiPascali Jr., 1:09-cr-00764-RJS)
Click for summary→

Judge Sullivan presided in the case of Frank DiPascali, a former associate of disgraced investment banker Bernie Madoff. DiPascali on August 11, 2009, pleaded guilty to charges that he aided the investment banker in a Ponzi Scheme.[89]

Despite DiPascali's cooperation with prosecutors, Judge Sullivan ordered him jailed until his sentencing as the judge deemed him a flight risk.[89]

Court documents

  • Letter to the Court in United States v. Frank DiPascali dated August 7, 2009
  • Victim Notification Order in United States v. Frank DiPascali dated August 7, 2009
  • Government’s August 10, 2009 Letter to the Court Regarding Bail in United States v. Frank DiPascali
  • Charges the Government Expects to File in United States v. Frank DiPascali Jr
  • Criminal Information filed in United States v. Frank DiPascali on August 11, 2009
  • Transcript of August 11, 2009 Plea Proceeding in United States v. Frank DiPascali
  • October 16, 2009 Government Motion to Reconsider Frank DiPascali's Bail Conditions
  • Court's October 20, 2009 Order Regarding Bail Hearing in United States v. Frank DiPascali, Jr
  • Transcript of October 28, 2009 Bail Hearing in U.S. v. Frank DiPascali, Jr.
  • December 17, 2009 Order Concerning Reconsideration of Bail in U.S. v. DiPascali, 09 Cr. 764 (RJS)
  • 03/01/2010 Judge Sullivan’s Order re: Victim Correspondence in US v. DiPascali
  • April 21, 2010 Application by the Government for a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture
  • April 22, 2010 Order Regarding Victim Comments to Government’s April 21, 2010 Application in U.S. v. DiPascali, 09 Cr. 764 (RJS)
  • June 16, 2010 Stipulation and Order between the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the defendant, and the defendant’s wife and family
  • June 16, 2010 Stipulation and Order (Payment of $504,459.76, Including Interest, of Funds Transferred to a Third Party)
  • June 16, 2010 Preliminary Order of Forfeiture (Final as to the Defendant)
  • Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group (1998)
     Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, 150 F.3d 132 (1998))
Click for summary→

Judge Sotomayor ruled (and was upheld on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, that SAT: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringed on the copyright of the television show Seinfeld. The case is often used in law schools as a modern application of the fair use doctrine.[90][91]

  • Dow Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice (1995)
     Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Dow Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice, 880F. Supp. 145 (1995))
Click for summary→

In 1995, Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Wall Street Journal allowing it to print a photocopy of the final note written by Clinton White House deputy counsel Vince Foster who died in 1993. While the death of Vince Foster was ruled a suicide, it remained a mystery to many and a source of many conspiracy theories. As a result, Sotomayor ruled that the "substantial" public interest in the Foster story outweighed any violation of his family's privacy.[95][96][97]

  • Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc. (1995)
     Judge(s):Sonia Sotomayor (Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, Inc, 67 F3d 1054 (1995))
Click for summary→

Judge Sotomayor's decision to grant a temporary injunction against the Major League Baseball owners on March 31, 1995, ended the 232-day baseball strike of 1994. The injunction prevented the owners from installing replacement players and temporarily reinstated a five-year-old collective bargaining agreement allowing the 1995 season to take place and allowing players and owners to come to a new agreement nearly a year later. Her decision was later upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.[98][99][100][101][92][102]

  • Ivan Boesky case (1987) (United States v. Boesky, No. 87 Cr. 378(MEL))
Click for summary→

Judge Lasker presided in the high-profile insider trading trial of Wall Street trader Ivan Boesky in what was considered the biggest trading scandal of the 1980s. Lasker in 1987 sentenced Boesky to three years in prison after being convicted on charges of insider trading. Boesky got a lighter sentence from the judge after cooperating with federal prosecutors. In a separate civil trial, Boesky settled to pay $100 in damages.[103]

  • NYC jails (1974) (Benjamin v. Malcolm, No. 75 Civ. 3073 (MEL))
Click for summary→

Judge Lasker will be remembered for a series of rulings in the 1970s and 1980s in which he forced New York City to change how it conducted business in its jails. During that time, the Legal Aid Society of New York City filed numerous lawsuits against the City of New York for civil rights violations in the Manhattan House of Detention and Rikier's Island.[103]

The City of New York was found liable in the lawsuits after there was evidence that the jails had severe overcrowding issues that led to numerous other problems. In one case involving Rikier's Island, the City of New York was found liable for not providing access to inmates for medical care and phone calls. Lasker in 1974 ordered The Tombs, another detention facility in Manhattan, closed after Lasker found the jail also had severe overcrowding and inmates were forced to sleep on the floor, along with dealing with filthy conditions such as cockroaches and mice.[103]

Noteworthy events

Federal Judicial Conference recommendation (2019)

In March 2019, the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) recommended that one judgeship be added to the district.[104] Based on FJC data, the district handled 542 weighted filings per judgeship from September 2017 to September 2018. Weighted filings are a specific metric used by the federal judiciary that accounts for the different amounts of time judges require to resolve types of civil and criminal cases. The national average in that period for weighted filings per judgeship was 513.[105]

The FJC is the policy-making body for the United States federal courts system. It was first organized as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922.[106] The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States serves as chair of the conference. The members of the conference are the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.[107]

Federal courthouse

The court's main office is housed in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in New York.[108]

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are currently 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.[109][110]

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.[111]

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through October 1 of the first year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Reagan made the most district court appointments with 11. President Biden made nine, the second most for the presidents under study for this period. President Trump had made two.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.[110]

Step ApprovedA Candidacy Proceeds DefeatedA Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation Candidate becomes federal judge Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.[112]

Effect of 2013 Government shutdown

On October 1, 2013, Chief JudgeLoretta Preska stayed all civil cases in which the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was a participant, with the exception of civil forfeiture cases. The stay was effective until October 18, 2013, the day after the end of the federal shutdown.[113][114]

The United States Department of Justice responded to the shutdown with a contingency plan concerning U.S. Attorney's Offices across the nation:

As Presidential Appointees, U.S. Attorneys are not subject to furlough. Excepted employees are needed to address ongoing criminal matters and civil matters of urgency throughout the Nation. Criminal litigation will continue without interruption as an excepted activity to maintain the safety of human life and the protection of property. Civil litigation will be curtailed or postponed to the extent this can be done without compromising to a significant degree the safety of human life or the protection of property. If a court denies a litigator’s request to postpone a case and orders it to continue, the litigation will become an excepted activity that can continue during the lapse. Headquarters support will be maintained only to the extent necessary to support current operations.[115][12]

See also

External links

  1. ↑Description of federal magistrate judges, District of New Hampshire
  2. United States Courts, "Frequently Asked Questions," accessed October 27, 2015
  3. Federal Judicial Center, "Deskbook for Chief Judges of U.S. District Courts," accessed May 14, 2021
  4. 4.04.1Federal Judicial Center, "History of the Districts of New York," accessed May 14 , 2009
  5. 5.05.15.2New York Post, "Man whom NYPD shot dead was no threat: judge," May 1, 2014
  6. 6.06.1New York Daily News, "Judge allows $70 million lawsuit against NYPD officers in fatal shooting to move forward," May 1, 2014
  7. 7.07.17.27.37.4New York Times, "Judge Rejects New York Limit on Donations to ‘Super PACs’," April 24, 2014
  8. 8.08.18.28.3Courthouse News Service, "Judge Ruefully Dissolves 'Super PAC' Limits in NY," April 25, 2014
  9. 9.09.1New York Times, "Court Lifts Limit on Contributing to Pro-Lhota PAC," October 24, 2014
  10. 10.010.110.2Newsday, "Ex-LIRR dispatcher gets 21 months for disability fraud," March 10, 2014
  11. 11.011.111.211.3New York Times, "Big Victory for Chevron Over Claims in Ecuador," March 4, 2014
  12. 12.012.112.2Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  13. Charleston Gazette, "Federal judge: NSA actions not unconstitutional," December 27, 2013
  14. Los Angeles Times, "Federal judge says NSA phone data collection is constitutional," December 27, 2013
  15. NBC News, "Federal judge upholds NSA telephone data collection," December 27, 2013
  16. Reuters, "U.S. judge says NSA phone surveillance is lawful," December 27, 2013
  17. American Civil Liberties Union, "ACLU Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Call-Tracking Program," January 2, 2014
  18. New Haven Independent, "Federal Judge Orders Alderman’s “Killer” Freed," December 17, 2013
  19. New York Times, "Judge Orders Freedom or Retrial for Connecticut Man Jailed Since ’95," December 17, 2013
  20. Columbia Law School: Press Release, "Professor Brett Dignam, Clinic Students Win Hard-Fought Case for Man Wrongfully Imprisoned 18 Years," December 17, 2013
  21. Courthouse News Service, “Weird Al Yankovic,” April 2, 2013
  22. Courthouse News Service, “Weird Al, Sony Settle $5M Royalty Lawsuit,” December 17, 2013
  23. Hollywood Reporter, “'Weird Al' Yankovic Settles $5 Million Lawsuit Against Sony Music,” December 18, 2013
  24. Courthouse News Service, "Class Calls Match.com a Giant RICO Fraud," November 25, 2013
  25. Bloomberg, "IAC Sued Over Profiles with Fake Photos on Dating Site Match.com," December 3, 2013
  26. Daily Dot, "Bail denied for LulzSec hacker Jeremy Hammond," November 21, 2012
  27. RT, "Anonymous hacker behind Stratfor attack faces life in prison," November 23, 2012
  28. Village Voice, "Judge in Jeremy Hammond Case Won't Recuse Herself," February 21, 2013
  29. U.S. Attorneys Office (S.D.N.Y.) Press Release, "Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Guilty Plea Of Jeremy Hammond For Hacking Into The Stratfor Website," May 28, 2013
  30. Rolling Stone, "Cyber-Activist Jeremy Hammond Sentenced to 10 Years In Prison," November 15, 2013
  31. New York Times, "Court Says New York Neglected Disabled in Emergencies," November 7, 2013
  32. Gothamist, "NYC Violates Federal Law With Weak Emergency Plans For Disabled, Judge Rules," November 8, 2013
  33. CNN Money, "Strippers win labor fight in New York," September 11, 2013
  34. CBS New York, "Judge: Strippers Must Be Paid At Least Minimum Wage," September 11, 2013
  35. ABC News, "Rick's Cabaret Strippers Entitled to Minimum Wage," September 12, 2013
  36. Huffington Post, "Beastie Boys Lawsuit: Group Sued Over Alleged Copyright Infringement On 'Licensed To Ill' & 'Paul's Boutique'," May 8, 2012
  37. Courthouse News Service, "Copyright Claims May Stick to Beastie Boys," September 11, 2013
  38. Billboard, "Beastie Boys’ 'Paul's Boutique' Sampling Lawsuit: The Fine Print," September 13, 2013
  39. Bloomberg Law, "No Relief for Pre-2009 Alleged Infringement Of Funk Rock Records by the Beastie Boys," September 11, 2013
  40. New York Law Journal, "Decision: TufAmerica, Inc., Plaintiff v. Diamond, et al," September 12, 2013
  41. Courthouse News Service, "Judge Upholds $400M Award in Oil Dispute," August 29, 2013
  42. New York Times, "Judge Rejects New York's Stop-and-Frisk Policy," August 12, 2013
  43. National Journal, "Why 'Stop and Frisk' Was Ruled Unconstitutional," August 12, 2013
  44. Nation Sun Journal, "Federal court strikes down New York's stop-and-frisk policy," August 12, 2013
  45. Center for Constitutional Rights, "Second Circuit Decision in Floyd v. City of New York FAQ," November 1, 2013
  46. New York Daily News, "Stop-and-frisk judge removed from case, reforms put on hold after federal appeals court ruling," October 31, 2013
  47. Courthouse News Service, "Boot to Stop-and-Frisk Judge Won't Kill Rulings," November 22, 2013
  48. ↑Courthouse News Service, "N.Y. Judge Approves $586M IPO Settlement," October 7, 2009
  49. New York Times, "Judge Rejects Google’s Deal to Digitize Books," September 10, 2009
  50. Associated Press, "Fairness Hearing Postponed for Google Books deal," September 24, 2009
  51. New York Times, "Judge Sets Nov. 9 Deadline For Revised Google Book Settlement," October 7, 2009
  52. Washington Post, "Judge backs revised Google Books deal," November 20, 2009
  53. BusinessWeek, "Google Defends Book Settlement, Setting Stage for Court Hearing," February 12, 2010
  54. DMW Media, "Google Book Settlement Gets Day in Court; No Ruling Today," February 18, 2010
  55. Publishers Weekly, "The Google Settlement Rejection: What Comes Next?" March 28, 2011
  56. Publishers Weekly, "Google, Publishers Settle Lawsuit over Book Scanning," October 04, 2012
  57. Publishers Weekly, "Google, Publishers Settle Lawsuit over Book Scanning," October 04, 2012
  58. 58.058.1Outten & Golden, "Court Conditionally Certifies Unpaid Intern Collective Under FLSA, According to Outten & Golden LLP," July 13, 2012
  59. MyFoxDC, "New York can't scare smokers with graphic images, court ruled," July 12, 2012
  60. ↑Ruling for 94th St. Grocery v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health
  61. Bloomberg, "U.S. District Judge May Review 30 Madoff Trustee Suits," October 17, 2011
  62. Business Insurance, "AT&T settles age discrimination suit brought by EEOC," October 26, 2011
  63. New York Times, "Judge Rejects Former Garden Executive’s Lawsuit Over YES Network," January 27, 2010
  64. Bloomberg, "S&P, Moody’s Found by Judge Not to Be Underwriters," June 1, 2010
  65. Lexology, "Court allows use of wiretap evidence in Galleon insider trading case," November 29, 2010
  66. New York Times, "Hedge Fund Manager Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud," February 24, 2010
  67. Herald Tribune, "Art Nadel, convicted Ponzi schemer, dies in prison," April 17, 2012
  68. 68.068.1New York Daily News, "Denied! Federal judge rejected Sen. Hiram Monserrate's plea to stay in office," February 19, 2010
  69. Monserrate v. New York State Senate, 599 F. 3d 148 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2010
  70. Washington Post, "Judge rejects SEC's decision to ease curb on investment bankers, analysts," March 19, 2010
  71. 71.071.1New York Times, "Judge Rejects Copyright Suit Against Jessica Seinfeld," September 10, 2009
  72. Lapine v. Seinfeld, Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2010
  73. Lapine v. Seinfeld, 31 Misc. 3d 736 - NY: Supreme Court 2011
  74. Wall Street Journal Law Blog, "Over Before It Starts: SEC, BofA Settle Suit Over Merrill Bonuses," August 3, 2009
  75. Wall Street Journal Law Blog, "Rakoff on BofA, SEC Settlement: Not So Fast, Fellas," August 6, 2009
  76. McClatchy, "Federal judge rules Bank of America-SEC deal is 'unfair and unreasonable,'" September 15, 2009
  77. Washington Post, "Judge criticizes, but approves, settlement with Bank of America," February 23, 2010
  78. Securities Docket, "Be Careful Asking for 12 Years… The Last Guy Who Did That Got 150 Years," July 8, 2009
  79. CBS News, "Rapper Lil' Kim Gets 366 Days for Perjury," July 16, 2005
Sours: https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York

Similar news:

Southern District of New York

Welcome to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which encompasses the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx in New York City, along with Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, and Westchester counties. The Office prosecutes cases involving violations of federal laws, and represents the interests of the United States government and its agencies in criminal and civil matters. The Office investigates and prosecutes a broad array of criminal conduct of every conceivable magnitude, even when the conduct arises in distant places. Today, the Office is at the forefront of many important areas of criminal law enforcement, including terrorism, white collar and cyber crime, mortgage fraud, public corruption, gang violence, organized crime, international narcotics trafficking and civil rights violations. Similarly, the Office litigates among the most complex and significant civil cases the Department of Justice handles - from large affirmative civil fraud cases to cases in the environmental, health care, immigration and bankruptcy areas, as well as cases implicating classified information.

Throughout its history, this Office has distinguished itself as one of the nation's premier legal institutions, successfully prosecuting groundbreaking and historic cases. Those who have served in the Southern District include lawyers who have gone on to become United States Senators, Congressmen, Mayors of New York City, Governor of New York, Secretary of War, Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary of State, Attorney General of the United States, United States Supreme Court Justice, Ambassadors and federal judges, as well as well-respected members of prominent private law firms.

Featured Resources

U.S. District Court, SDNY

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, SDNY

Bureau of Prisons

Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)

Sours: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny


260 261 262 263 264